For those who think sighted fire won't work at close range

But in my experience, reporters get their information about home invasions and killings from the police dept...and the detailed reports made by the investigating detectives and officers.
Click to expand...
Yep. Some folks seem to think that newspapers never get stuff right, but when it comes to crime reporting they are usually pretty good about accurately relaying the information from the police. And I'll bet the police interviewed the shooter to a much greater degree than the little snippet John posted.
 
The premise of this thread is by someone who for years has been bashing something that he himself does not fully understand.
As someone who has been researching and teaching point shooting for decades
let me state that:

1) Point shooting is very accurate.

2) Point shooting can be learned in a matter of minutes and then refined for as long as the shooter cares to.

3) Once learned point shooting requires very little practice to maintain.

After saying all that let me add that point shooting is not a REPLACEMENT of aimed fire but a COMPLIMENT to it.

I know of no one who states that aimed or semi aimed fire will not work at close range.
But I know dozens who do claim that point/threat focused skills are a valuable addition to one's skill set for the times that aimed fire is not possible.
So, once again, I fail to see the relevance of this thread.
 
So, once again, I fail to see the relevance of this thread.
Click to expand...
To me, the relevance of this thread is that there are lessons to be learned....for all.

There are newcomers joining this forum continually. And then there are old dogs who hesitate to learn new tricks. Those folks don't necessarily know what others know and it's our responsibility to share our knowledge.

This forum is filled with learning and teaching opportunities; to ask, to tell and to share. For example: there are those who still believe that stand and deliver and sights only and/or fastest first-shot wins. Silly, I know.
But here, folks learn that movement off the x, instinctive shooting and shot placement are more important to survival in a deadly encounter.

It's threads like this one that pique peoples interest in point shooting, laser sighted shooting, low light shooting, cover, concealment and on and on.

To those who already know these things it's old news. To a newbie or an old dog, it's a wealth of information and discussion. All for free.
.
 
Last edited:
I know of no one who states that aimed or semi aimed fire will not work at close range.
Click to expand...

After saying all that let me add that point shooting is not a REPLACEMENT of aimed fire but a COMPLIMENT to it.
Click to expand...

Ok Matt, since you want to turn this into a point shooting thread (and I started this thread just to demonstate sighted fire can work at all but retention range... and as for point shooting, just today, teaching an armored car guard how to shoot, I did a bunch of hip shooting with a Glock 26. So it's not like I hate it or anything.)

Let me ask you this. Sighted fire can work at close range, sighted fire can work at long range, and it defiantly can be used for precision, long or short range, right?

But can point shooting be used for precision at long range?

Just curious Matt.

Oh and david, just how many times have reporters talked about 'automatic revolvers' and '90mm pistols' and, oh wait... 'Assault rifles'! And tell me, if you have ever talked to Massad Ayoob about cops who write down just the jest of what happened and not every fact the victim/suspect said? You do know cops do that alot, right?

I think I believe the guy who told Gabe and Farnam what happened long before I'd believe what a newspaper man got second hand.
 
(and I started this thread just to demonstate sighted fire can work at all but retention range...
Click to expand...
Why would you start a thread based on an invalid assumption? I'm still waiting for somebody to identify who these people are that think sighted fire won't work at close range. I've been in this business for a long time and I've never heard anybody suggest that.
Oh and david, just how many times have reporters talked about 'automatic revolvers' and '90mm pistols' and, oh wait... 'Assault rifles'!
Click to expand...
Well, given that the term "assault rifles" is one that is misused regularly by those in the shooting fraternity, I'm not sure that is a reporters issue. And yes, reporters can and do make mistakes in terminology. All of which has NOTHING to do with what was being discussed, which was "..reporters get their information about home invasions and killings from the police dept...and the detailed reports made by the investigating detectives and officers."
And tell me, if you have ever talked to Massad Ayoob about cops who write down just the jest of what happened and not every fact the victim/suspect said? You do know cops do that alot, right?
Click to expand...
I realize you have absolutely no field experience and little to no knowledge about how police work in things like this, but you are confusing some very different concepts. If you take down a victim statement, or you interview a person at a crime scene for information regarding a shooting, you are not going to write down the gist (not jest) of what happened. You are generally going to have a word for word statement from the victim, often written by the victim, and you are going to have detailed information about the issues relevant to the crime. You do not leave out or change facts that are relevant.
 
In my shooting the perp was charging me and when I shot him I couldn't see my sights as my fist was in my back and the triggerguard was actually against my hip, keeping the gun where he couldn't grab it.
 
Deaf...I would be very interested in what you mean by long range.
IMHO long range and precision usually infer a scoped sighted rifle.
But---I have been able to get consistent hits on silver dollar sized objects out to 15 yards with two handed point shoulder point shooting with service sized handguns. ( With me that means a 4 inch Model 10-8 revolver.)
But to take your logic to extremes, since a rifle can be used for both long and short distances, why bother with handguns?
I too train armed guards---probably over 3000 in the past 10 years-- and I get them where they can empty an 11 round magazine--10 plus 1-- from a Glock 19 ( yes, in NY we still have an assault ban) in 3-4 seconds, on the move, in very dim light with point shooting at about 4-7 yards into a fist sized group.
Not from the hip, (although they learn that as well) but from what Fairbairn called the (one handed) 3/4 hip position, which places the pistol at mid chest level.
I get them there within a few minutes of point shooting training after a day or so of aimed fire instruction.
If you feel that this is an unnecessary skill then you practice whatever turns you on.

Armsmaster270--maybe you should start a thread titled, "Point/Hip/Threat Focused shooting works at close range"
But then again, perhaps 95% of the shooting world already accepts that as a fact.
 
Last edited:
Deaf...I would be very interested in what you mean by long range.
Click to expand...

That could be anywhere from 15 to 25 to 50 yards. CNS shots, partial exposed body shots.

Now these "silver dollar sized objects" at 15 yards. That's you, but can you get most students to do that? And if so, why use sights at all and still tell all of us here that point shooting is just a 'COMPLIMENT' to sighted fire?

I mean, is it just a COMPLIMENT or can it do all sighted fire can? It's a simple question Matt.
 
25-50 yards?
You gotta be kidding me!!
Yes, I have shot handguns at those distances and well beyond--with sights, of course--but if you think that this reflects reality then you and I will, once again, have to agree to disagree.
No, I do not think that point shooting can do it all.
Just like I do not think that hand blows alone will "do it all" in unarmed combat
Which is why we also learn kicks, knees to groin and elbows,--as well as throws and rips-- so as to be better prepared for the varying distances in a hand to hand struggle.
I do, however, think that point shooting will serve one well in 90% of all handgun encounters, which usually occur within a few feet.
If point shooting took thousands of rounds and untold hours of practice then I could see value in your argument.
But is does not and, since point shooting flows with the body's natural instincts during a life or death ordeal then I see no reason not to add it to one's skill set.
For those seeking more information from a very qualified source, check out LT. Mike Conti of the Mass. State Police
at: http://www.sabergroup.com/video_clips.htm
 
Last edited:
There are many fine, high-performance rounds available, but Cor-Bon DPX tops the list, because it penetrates and expands, without fail! It's what I carry.
Click to expand...

Great story, however this last part sounds more like an advertisement.
 
Matthew Tempkin said:
they can empty an 11 round magazine--10 plus 1-- from a Glock 19 ( yes, in NY we still have an assault ban) in 3-4 seconds, on the move, in very dim light with point shooting at about 4-7 yards into a fist sized group.
Click to expand...

That's pretty impressive shooting for anyone, sights or otherwise. When you're doing this drill, are they moving forward, backward, or laterally? What technique do you teach to overcome the natural bobble of the gun while the shooter is moving?

On top of that, 3-4 seconds for 11 rounds is pretty fast - assuming that your trainees can draw from the holster and get the first round out in 1.5 seconds, that leaves a maximum of 2.5 seconds to fire 10 rounds, or 1.5 seconds to fire 10 rounds if they're hitting that 3 second mark. For the moment, I'll assume that the guys who do it in 3 seconds are a statistical outliers, and that the average student completes the drill in 4 seconds. If you work out the math on that, assuming the aforementioned 1.5 seconds for the 1st round from the leather, then that means that your shooter will have to have an average split time of 0.25 seconds per shot, while moving, in low light, and keeping all their hits in a fist sized group (my fist covers about a 4 inch group).

The fastest split time on earth is owned by Jerry Miculek, when he fired 5 shots from a revolver in 0.57 seconds for a split time of around 0.11 seconds. A "great" split time in competition is 0.15-0.20 depending on the shot you're taking, and then you're looking at A class (or Expert Class in IDPA) and above shooters to hit those splits.

I'm very interested in your training technique, especially your training window, i.e. how long it takes to get shooters to this level, because it sounds like you're minting state-champion level competitors out of an armed guard class.
 
sounds like you're minting state-champion level competitors out of an armed guard class.
Click to expand...

Any self defense trainer worth their salt trains their students in the ways they will probably fight. Matt seems to have all that covered.

A gunfight is usually an ambush giving the aggressor the advantage. Therefore, the target of the aggressor should practice by crouching, moving off the x as they draw and shoot. Hit or miss, just shoot.
If you've ever been shot at you totally understand.

If seconds are to count....then moving is paramount followed by accuracy. Neither is a guarantee of survival because people rarely stop or die as soon as they are shot. Only a cns shot drops someone.
Even a direct shot through the heart leaves a determined shooter alive for 10 or 15 seconds....enough time to kill their opponent.

So don't get too hung up on seconds to target unless it's just a shooting game.
.
 
You're missing the point. What I was obliquely driving at was that it appears, based on matt's post that he is training shooters to complete a task (fire 11 shots on the move in 3-4 seconds at a target 7 yards distant into a 4 inch group) which would present a challenge for experienced competitive shooters. Since subtlety seems to be out the window, I wanted to know how long it takes to train his armored car guards to this level of proficiency, because I'm skeptical to say the least.

The reason I put numbers and split times in there is because it helps quantify the skill level required to perform the drill. Also, it's important to know what direction the shooter is moving during this drill, because if it's lateral or rearward movement, it becomes even more difficult for the shooter.
 
NRAhab--any time you are in NY I will be happy to put you through this training for free.
Other than that, there is no way to convince you of this.
And, other than hands on, I have no desire to debate this.
But to answer your question I usually have them moving in at first, then they go into motion front/ back/and lateral.
Which is very similar to what Gabe Suraez shows on his videos--which you can purchase directly from him.
And, quite frankly, this only takes a few minutes of instruction/practice.
Maybe if competition shooters started point shooting they would enjoy similar results?
For those interested here is a review of a class that I co taught with 7677 for the Akron OH Police Department back in August 2007
http://www.warriortalk.com/showthread.php?t=26950&highlight=Matt+temkin
 
Last edited:
So, how long does it take, a couple of hours of practice before they're moving laterally and doing this? Moving in would be a piece of cake, because you could cover the 7 yards fast and then it's just a mag dump at point blank range. So how long, total time, does it take to for you to train someone to complete your drill, assuming that they're a relatively novice shooter? I mean, a 4 inch group on the move with 11 rounds in 3 or 4 seconds is pretty impressive, so I'm hoping that maybe you can tell me how long the "learning curve" is for shooters.

Like I said, I'm skeptical; but I'm not looking to argue the point, just nail down the specifics of the drill and the amount of time it takes to teach someone to shoot at this level. I think what really fired up the skepticism drive is the group size. If you had some video or something of a shooter doing this, that'd be neat because I'm interested in the technique, speed of movement, etc.
 
Last edited:
Actually I do not find 11 shots in 3-4 seconds impressive at all.
In fact, with threat focused techniques this can be accomplished by anyone
The only time that I was timed my splits with a 5 shot J frame was .22.
I can empty a revolver in less that a second, and I am faster with a 9mm.
As to my students...
I teach a 6 session class with the point shooting/movement coming in the 4th session.
I place great emphasis on shooting while moving in--especially when facing multiples---since this was hammered into me by all of my combat tested instructors.
Sorry that I cannot be more helpful in convincing you but if you are ever in NYC I will gladly show you how simple it all is.
This is where I teach:
http://www.gunlicense.com/
Click on the range link and the good looking fella in the green shirt--in a Weaver stance no less--is your humble poster.
 
Last edited:
Actually I do not find 11 shots in 3-4 seconds impressive at all.
Click to expand...

Neither do I. You can teach anyway to jerk a trigger in a hurry, that doesn't require any special sort of skill. If I'm ever up in NY, I'll have to look you up. Actually, I think there's an IDPA match in your area later this year, we get together and pull some triggers.
 
Actually I do not find 11 shots in 3-4 seconds impressive at all.
In fact, with threat focused techniques this can be accomplished by anyone.
Click to expand...
When I was training a lot I regularly did 20 rounds in 5 seconds, all in the "A" zone at 5 yards. That was from low ready, not from the holster.
 
How exactly do you use the sights at close range without losing focus of the bigger picture? I'm not trained, and I'm sure there is a technique. Anyone care to elaborate?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top